A511.8.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Gender

As we near the end of this course, we are focusing on another topic that is very intriguing to me - gender as it relates to leadership. Ironically, before I knew that our blog post this week would be about gender, I catered my weekly discussion board post to focus on this very issue. I pointed out that I enlisted in the military right out of high school and have been in male dominated positions throughout my entire career. In fact, my last unit was a Special Forces unit and females were not accepted to the unit at all. I understand that as I enter the civilian workforce in the future, I am more likely to encounter female leaders. I am not anticipating any problems with those adjustments but it will be different for me. Therefore, I have made a conscious effort in the recent past to begin to prepare myself for this change in paradigm.

Dr. Rosabeth Moss Kanter is a tenured professor at the Harvard Business School and is director and chair of the Harvard University Advanced Leadership Initiative. She conducted an interview for the Harvard Business Review discussing some of the issues facing gender equality in organizational leadership today. Though the interview was conducted a few years ago, the issues are still relevant and prevalent today. In her interview, Dr. Kanter (2010) first addressed why society as a whole has yet to fully equalize women and men in leadership roles. She points out that several top executive positions are thought to require a 24/7 commitment. Historically speaking, women have been the supportive gender in the traditional family. She suggests that a 24/7 commitment to the organization would remove women from their family support roles so perhaps that is part of why society has yet to fully embrace female leaders. This also leads into her next point about equal pay. Dr. Kanter points out that women are generally more likely to take time off of work to spend tending to their families. It is estimated that women earn 5.9% to 8.9% less than men when they hold positions that allow them to take maternity leave (Spivey, 2005). Though maternity leave is just one example of time spent away from the work force for family purposes, it is understandable that women may lose both experience and seniority by taking large breaks from the workforce. Also, another difference in the pay between men and women may be due to the fact that men are traditionally more apt to fill high-risk positions (Kanter, 2010). By this, she doesn't just mean that men accept jobs that place them at a higher risk of physical harm. She is implying that men are traditionally more likely to accept risk in general. This is backed by a study conducted by Melissa Fisher, a social and cultural analysis at NYU. "A significant number of contemporary studies in behavioral economics show that women tend to take fewer risks than men do in finance" (Fisher, 2015, p. 140). Fisher has found that women tend to be more conservative in their methods in the workforce and are generally less averse to risk-taking. Though this leads to fewer instances of failure and higher instances of success, it also leads to lower overall levels of returns for organizations.

As Dr. Kanter continues her interview, she points out that people tend to gravitate toward people that are similar to themselves (Kanter, 2010). She uses examples not just of gender but also of similar social or educational backgrounds. For example, once we complete this degree and move into leadership positions, perhaps we will be more likely to give preferential hiring treatment (if we are in a position to do so) to fellow graduates of Embry-Riddle because we understand their educational background. Since the workforce and particularly leadership roles have traditionally been male dominated, men may be more likely to gravitate to other men to promote them into leadership positions. Yukl (2013) reflects this very sentiment. He say that there is "bias to select and promote individuals whore are similar to the (male) managers who make the decisions" (p. 372). Dr. Kanter (2010), however, does point out that during the recession, more men were laid off than women. (She does not discuss the reason for this but it can be assumed that it is because women were engaging in less risky business behaviors.) She says that this has caused a shift in the ratio of men to women in the marketplace and, in time, more women will rise to top management positions simply due to the number of women in the workforce now. Since it is in our nature to gravitate to that which we know, it is likely that more women will rise to top executive positions.

A final point that both Dr. Kanter and Dr. Yukl point out is that women are often "less likely than men to ask for promotion and initial the types of negotiations likely to favor it" (Yukl, 2013, p. 372). According to Volkema (2009), "women tend to be more apprehensive about negotiations than are men, and consequently they are less likely to initiate a negotiation. Interestingly, when they do negotiate—for example, in salary negotiations—women generally ask for and receive considerably less than do men" (p. 596).

Over the past several decades, women have been gaining more power in the workforce. These studies and theories show that as more women enter the workforce and as society norms change, women will continue to gain more traction. There is still room for improvement but it is probable that there will be an eventual total equalization in the traditional workforce between men and women.



REFERENCES

Kanter, R.M. (2010, Apr 2). Women, Ambition, and (Still) the Pay Gap. Harvard Business Review. [Video File]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhquUOlBuOY&feature=youtu.be&t=5s

Fisher, M. (2015). Wall street women: Professional saviors of the global economy. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 11(2), 137-155. doi:10.1108/cpoib-11-2012-0054

Spivey, C. (2005). Time off at what price? The effects of career interruptions on earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 59(1), 119-140.

Volkema, R. J. (2009). Why dick and jane don’t ask: Getting past initiation barriers in negotiations Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.07.005

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.7.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness

We have been studying theories of ethical leadership this week which is very broadly defined. It essentially means “influencing employees through values, principles and beliefs that extensively border on the accepted norms in the organizational behaviors” (Alshammari, Almutairi, & Thuwaini, 2015, p. 108). Ethical leadership, in other words, is leading in a manner than a reasonable person would consider to be acceptable. There are four main theories of leadership that are considered ethical: transforming, servant, spiritual, and authentic leadership (Yukl, 2013). For our purposes here, I want to focus on authentic leadership. Though experts’ definitions of “authentic leadership” vary, they all emphasize consistency in words, actions, and values. Authenticity is derived from Greek philosophy and denotes a humanistic psychological stance, which means “to thine own self be true” (Zielinska, 2012, p.1). Yukl (2013) points out that authentic leaders – those that are true to themselves – “have a high self-awareness about their values, beliefs, emotions, self-identities, and abilities” (p. 351).

In their journal entry to the Human Resource Management International Digest, Goffee and Jones (2006) discuss some of the top business leaders that are self-aware. However, they approach it from a very unique angle. Instead of just focusing on authentic leaders with a heightened sense of self-awareness, they discuss an awareness of differences that these leaders have on which they have capitalized. They note that these effective leaders “become aware of what is different about them that makes them attractive to others” (p. 32). What they mean by this is that effective authentic leaders must be aware of their own uniqueness but must present it in a way that is appealing to others. If a leader’s unique attribute is abrasiveness, that most likely will not appeal to others and draw them to become followers. However, with the right level of confidence, even that can be leveraged to produce effective leadership. One example of someone that fits that bill is Donald Trump. He is well known for being very straight-forward and, often times, a jerk. However, as of this week, he is still the front-runner for the GOP. It is, of course, unknown if he will continue in his rise to political power but what is known is that he has successfully built a multi-billion dollar empire around his abrasive attitude. He found a way to capitalize on that difference and make it somehow appealing to others.

When I examine my own life and consider my own differences, I have to ask myself how I can use my own unique personality to be the most effective leader possible. The character traits that I have that set me apart are my ability to listen, my desire to make other people laugh (sense of humor), and my logical approach to problem-solving. It is pretty easy to see how my ability to listen is appealing to others. Often, people just need to vocalize what they feel. But there is a difference between hearing and listening. I am receptive to what others have to say. When it comes to my sense of humor, the key is to know when enough is enough. There is an appropriate time and place for humor. There are times when even the biggest jester must bow to the king. My use of logic can often seem emotionless. However, I attempt to tie in my ability to actively listen and a touch of humor to remind my subordinates that I understand the situation at hand and that, in the end, we are still going to get through it together.

My traits are unique to me, of course. We all have our own strengths and we need to be aware of what they are and learn to capitalize on them. The key, though, is authenticity.

            There is an almost endless list of differences that individuals might communicate. 

            But any attempt to create the definitive list of leadership attributes is futile. This is                               because the differences must be authentic to you as a leader. They must be significant, real                   and perceived. (Goffee and Jones, 2006, p. 34)

You cannot fake your own traits. They must be genuinely yours. Embrace what makes you different. Figure out how to use that to make you a truly authentic leader.

References

Alshammari, A., N. Almutairi, N., & Fahad Thuwaini, S. (2015). Ethical leadership: The effect on   employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3), 108. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p108

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Getting personal on the topic of leadership. Human Resource      Management International Digest, 14(4), 32-34. doi:10.1108/09670730610666382

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zielinska, M. (2012). Developing authentic leadership. Kenexa. Retrieved from                 http://www.kenexa.com/Portals/0/Downloads/Developing%20Authentic%20Leaders.pdf

A511.6.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Meaning

Meaning

            A fairly famous quote usually attributed to Confucius that career counselors love to espouse to their counselees is “do what you love and you’ll never work another day in your life”.  Though this is sound advice for finding the career that best suits a particular personality, it doesn’t guarantee that everybody will end up with their dream career. In fact, when an individual picks a career based on doing what they love, their love of that field often evaporates because it transitions from being a passion to being what every job is – work (Scivicque, 2010). That doesn’t mean, however, that we cannot be fulfilled by our work. Regardless of what career is chosen, the key is not necessarily to do your job because you love the career field. The key, rather, is to find meaning to the job that you are doing. As leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that those under our charge are able to find meaning in their work in order to achieve maximum efficiency.

            Even in what society would consider a horrible job, there are those that are able to thrive. Imagine careers such as janitors, food service in schools, and subway elevator operators. There are thousands of jobs that society would deem undesirable. However, even in these careers, there are those that are not only successful but find fulfillment. That is people they have found meaning to their work. They don’t just understand what they are doing but why they are doing it. “Those who succeed at creating meaning — either on their own or with the help of their boss — tend to work harder, more creatively, and with more tenacity, giving the companies that employ them a leg up in the marketplace” (Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010). Meaning, however, is rarely just found through luck. It has to be created and cultivated. That is where we, as leaders, must succeed if we wish to affect change. Ulrich and Ulrich (2010) list the following as ways that leaders can assist employees cultivate meaning:

·         Help employees identify and creatively use the strengths, traits, and values with which they most identify

·         Match the purposes that motivate employees to the jobs they do.

·         Foster friendships and key relationship-building to create high-performing, high-relating teams.

·         Promote positive work environments through attention to characteristics like humility, selflessness, order, and openness.

·         Help people identify and work at the types of challenges that line up with their personal experience.

·         Build in time for both individual and corporate-level self-reflection.

·         Encourage civility and delight from little things that personalize and civilize the world of work.

The only way for a leader to truly engage those under their charge, however, is through the building of interpersonal relationships over time (Serdukov, 2012). That does not necessarily mean that effective leaders/managers must soften their authoritative roles but rather must genuinely consider the humanistic elements of leadership. The key to relating meaning is to present it to subordinates in a rational and logical manner. “Cognitive sensemaking processes are important in conducting strategic changes and that the company managers play a key role in this process by providing meaningful interpretations to their organizations” (Serdukov, 2012, p. 425). It is important to note, however, that this still does not guarantee that a member of an organization will immediately find the meaning in their own work. Think back to the example of a janitor. How can a leader inspire a janitor to perform at optimum efficiency? Through the keys listed above, a leader can really only inspire members of the team to begin to embrace the values and vision of the organization. Through that, all functions begin to take on meaning because they are work toward the same goals. Whether the function of a team member is facility cleanliness or manufacturing, a leader is responsible for helping subordinates see how their functions fit in with the bigger picture.

            Since change-oriented behavior is primarily concerned with understanding and adapting to the environment (Yukl, 2013), it is of particular importance for leaders to ensure that those in their organization all have embraced a sense of meaning. Members of the organization must understand why the changes are occurring if they are embrace leadership’s vision for the organization. As leaders, it is our job to first ensure that our mission does have meaning and then ensure that our subordinates understand the value of their individual roles within the organization and how every function, no matter how small, is valued.

           

References

Communication competence improves organizational effectiveness: How communicative leaders influence employee attitudes, well-being and performance. (2014). Strategic Direction,         30(8), 28-31. doi:10.1108/SD-08-2014-0097

Scivicque, C. (2010, September 21). Bad Career Advice: Do What You Love and You'll Never    Work a Day. Forbes.

Serdukov, S. (2012). From the chaos of transition economy to "normalized" managerial     practices: The role of group interaction in creating meaning in managerial work. Journal           for East European Management Studies, 17(4), 423-444.

Ulrich, D., & Ulrich, W. (2010). Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work.        Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/06/getting-beyond-  engagement-to-c

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.5.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Remote Transformational Leadership

Remote Transformational Leadership

            Think about the organization for which you work today. How often do you interact with your leaders directly? How about your second and third tier leaders? Most likely, a great deal of your interaction with them happens through mediums such as e-mail or via text messages. As technology continues to advance, the doors are open for activities such as telecommuting and remote assignments. An employee make work across the country or even across the globe from the hub where his/her supervisor is. In cases like these, the leaders and managers of the organization must still communicate with subordinates. Even in extremely large organizations, though there may not be a geographical separation, the leaders of the organization must be able to disseminate information down the chain. How does a leader effectively communicate in an environment such as these?

            In 1947, Weber (1947) described charismatic leadership as the ability to influence followers not by authority but rather solely on the follower perceptions of the leader. Transformational leadership is very similar to charismatic leadership. In fact, transformational leaders are all charismatic leaders. The difference is that they not only influence their followers’ perceptions of the leader but they inspire the follower to embrace the leader’s vision as their own and drive them to the highest possible levels of performance (Khatri, Templer, & Dudhwar, 2012). How can this be accomplished if an employee has no direct interaction with leadership?

            Remote leadership is defined as “leadership interactions that are characterized by electronically-mediated communication between geographically and physically isolated leaders” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003). Through their study, they wanted to determine the effects of intellectual stimulation and charisma in remote leadership situations. They hypothesized that “individuals exposed to e-mail messages containing a charismatic or intellectually stimulating message would express higher levels of task motivation, and demonstrate higher levels of performance on a laboratory task than individuals who received e-mail instructions that this not contain these aspects of transformational leadership” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 168). They conducted two experiments on Canadian university students in which a message was conveyed through e-mail using three styles – transformational leadership, leadership by exception (which is a very hands-on approach to management), and laissez-faire leadership (which is a minimalist approach). The students were broken into separate control groups – one group for each e-mail leadership style - and then all asked to complete the same task which the e-mails addressed. After completing the task, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire to gather appropriate data. Though this research was completed in a controlled laboratory environment, the intent was to mimic the reality of a field environment. (The actual task that the students had to complete was to first individually rank 12 items by importance that they would need if stranded on a mountain and then to reach a group consensus on the ranking of the same 12 items.)

            After completion of the study, they found that the results consistently showed that both intellectual stimulation and charisma communicated through the tone of the e-mails resulted in improved task performance. However, “there was no significant effect attributable to the combination of intellectual stimulation and charisma” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 169). Though the results did not support an effect of charismatic leadership on individual motivation, that doesn’t mean that the lack of findings is unsupportive of their original hypothesis. It is plausible that the laboratory setting was actually ineffective as transmitting the proper charismatic tone. They stated that “it may be that nonverbal cues are important to communicate the motivating aspects of charismatic leadership” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 169). Remember, though, that charismatic leadership and transformational leadership are not exactly the same. They still feel that the experiments closely resembled an actual field situation and the results still supported higher performance for those that received the e-mail toned as that of a transformational leader. They closed by stating “the present finding suggest that remote transformational leadership can still have the same positive effects on performance and attitudes that occurs within face-to-face interaction. Moreover, our findings suggest that electronically mediated communication channels may be used to convey the same leadership “message” as in face-to-face interaction” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 170).

            As technology continues to advance, we will continue to be exposed to situations that require remote leadership. This is a study that directly relates to the environment faced by any organization that has members that are geographically separated. It also applies to large organizations that rely heavily on modern communication mediums to convey messages. This study proves that it is possible to still be a transformational leader for your remote followers. Leaders should take the time to consider the message they are conveying and how it will be received and perceived by their remote subordinates if they wish to inspire their followers to perform at optimum efficiency.   

References

Barling, J., Kelley, E., Kelloway, E., Comtois, J., & Gatien, B. (2003). Remote transformational leadership.             Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24(3), 163-171.             doi:10.1108/01437730310469589

Khatri, N., Templer, K. J., & Budhwar, P. S. (2012). Great (transformational)             leadership=charisma+vision. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 1(1), 38-   62. doi:10.1108/20454451211205941

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. Translated by T. Parsons. New YorkL Free Press.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.4.3.RB - LeeDarrell - Leadership Traits

The two chapters that we covered this week covered "leadership traits and skills" and "contingency theories and adaptive leadership". A lot of emphasis was placed on managerial motivation, traits, and effectiveness. This week, I have been asked to describe what this means in my own words. First, we have to have a solid definition of some key terms. According to Yukl (2013), a trait can be a variety of attributes that are unique to an individual. They can deal with personality, morals, values, moties - just basically anything that defines who a person is. A skill, on the other hand, is a ability to do something. Think of it like this. A good teacher posses certain traits such as patience, understanding, selflessness, etc. Those are all the things that make a teacher who they are. They also posses the skill of being able to pass knowledge along to the students. That is something that they do and not who they are. Another term that we need to understand is competency which is a combination of skills and traits. This can be the hardest to understand since it is a combination of the other two. Think of it more as a skill that is a direct result of the trait. I have often heard in life that the most professional people in any given field are the ones that do what they do because it is who they are. For example, the best pilots are those that seem to be born to fly. The best mechanics are the ones that love tinkering with engines. Etc.

So let me describe some of the things that we learned this week and what they really mean to me. We first learned about managerial motivation. When you break it down, there really are two things that motivate a manager - either themselves ("personalized power orientation") or the others in the organization ("socialized power orientation"). When a manager uses personalized power orientation, it doesn't mean that they don't care about the others in the organization and it doesn't mean that the decisions being made are poor decisions. It just means that the focus is on the manager. Often, though, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, the decisions made often are made with little consideration for the effect on others within the organization (or even the organization as a whole). The decisions can be rash and impulsive. On the flip-side, you have socialized power orientation. Typically this is a trait possessed/displayed by leaders that are more emotionally mature. These leaders tend to not be manipulative and put the needs of the organization ahead of their own needs and desires. Of course, a leader can slide anywhere between these two motivations at any time.

We studied several specific leadership traits this week. They are not all listed here but I do want to focus on just a few of them. First, there is self-confidence. Usually this is a good trait to posses but the problem is that it can lead to arrogance. I think that we have all met someone that is very good at what they do but they tend to flaunt it. A sign of a good leader is being confident yet humble. This is true meekness. Though that isn't a trait that we discussed this week, it should have been in my opinion. It fits right in with everything else. When you hear the word "meek", what do you think? There is a misconception that it means weak. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Meekness means that one is able to exercise self-control. Though this isn't a spiritual blog, did you know that the Bible describes Moses as being the most meek man? Yes, Moses who called down curses on Pharaoh and led the Israelites from captivity. The same Moses that threw down the 10 Commandments in anger. Again, my point is not to bring religion into this but rather to show that "meek" is so often misused. When we talk about self-confidence and the dangers of arrogance, that is what I think - meek. It means self-control of great power. Another trait that was covered that really sticks out to me is emotional stability and maturity. Those that are more emotionally stable tend to exercise self-control and have a high level of both cognitive and moral development. They are able to take a step back and think things through. But that doesn't mean that we are all supposed to be emotionless like Spock on "Star Trek". We need to understand that emotions are a part of life that we have to accept and control. The last trait that we discussed is actually not a trait but a set of five traits often known as "The Big Five". They are work together. They are surgency (extroversion), conscientiousness (dependability and integrity), agreeableness, adjustment (stability and self-esteem), and intellectance (open mindedness). Along with the traits listed here (plus several others not listed), we studied three broad categories of skills than effective leaders must posses. We need technical skills, interpersonal skills, and conceptual skills. Technical skills are pretty self-explanatory. That means that you have the knowledge necessary to complete the tasks. Interpersonal skills are also fairly easy to understand. Leaders are a part of a team. We, as leaders, must be able to connect with our teams. And last, we studied conceptual skills which basically means the ability to "think outside the box".

As I think about what I have learned this week, I was forced to look inward at my own self and how this applies to me personally. Where am I strong? Where am I weak? First, I think that I have a socialized power orientation. Are there times where I make leadership decisions based on my own personalized power orientation? Of course there are. But overall, I believe that my motivation is for that of my team. When I work late nights or weekends that I am supposed to be off, one could argue that I am doing that for myself (to make myself look good for my superiors) but I know that isn't true. I know that I do put the needs of my team first. But I also know that I have too strong of a need for affiliation. I didn't really discuss that above but that means that a leader is more concerned with being accepted by his/her coworkers than about accomplishing the actual tasks at hand. Sometimes I let that get the best of me. I think that when you work with a smaller team, it is a lot harder to not allow your need for affiliation to affect your decision making process. I currently work with a very small team. In fact, in my actual office, there are only two of us. I honestly hate making the decisions that hurt my coworker. (In my parent office, we have more people but I work in a Forward Engagement Center.) I would say that is my biggest weakness as a leader right now.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.3.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Power and Influence

So far, this has been my favorite week of study in the MSLD program when it comes to the content. The focus this week was on "power and influence". There is no firm source of the power that we exert over others. There is no set level of influence that we have. It is all subjective but it is important for us to at least have a broad understand of the relationship between power and influence and how we can properly leverage both. Power and influence are very closely linked. Yukl (2013, p. 186) defines power as "the capacity of one party (the "agent") in influence another party (the "target")." Though they are very closely related, that doesn't mean that power is influence. If you read that statement again, you will see that power is the capacity to influence. In other words, power is the actual ability. Influence, then, is the actual act of helping another (a target) reach a decision.

Power can come from multiple sources. Again, remember that power is just the capacity to influence another. It isn't the actual act of influencing. There are two main types of power. First, you have position power which "includes potential influence derived from legitimate authority, control over resources and rewards, control over punishments, control over information, and control over the physical work environment" (Yukl, 2013, p. 193.). This is something that we encounter on a daily basis in the military. The military is set up with a hierarchical structure. Regardless of the level of personal relationships established, those that are above us in the hierarchical structure do exert power over us. They have the ability to influence us simply by their position even if we have never established a personal relationship with them. The other main source of power is personal power which "includes potential influence derived from task expertise, and potential influence based on friendship and loyalty (Yukl, 2013, p. 193). Notice the difference between the two. The position power is based on status. The personal power is based on a relationship. That isn't to say that one is more effective than the other. They are just different. Position power relies on status to influence others. Personal power relies on relationships to exert power.

Personally, I am professionally in a position where I do not have much position power. Though there are those in my work center that I outrank, we are all pretty much equal. I am in a unique work environment where everybody is a seasoned professional. There are no "new" Soldiers here. Therefore, I have to rely on personal power to influence others.  I am not in a position to exercise either reward or coercive power. Most of the influence that I need to exercise seems to be up the chain anyway. Therefore, I have three main sources of power. First, I am able to use expert power. That is the ability to influence others by possessing unique knowledge and being an expert in my field (Yukl, 2013). As an Army recruiter, I have to use a lot of the interpersonal skills that I have developed over the course of my life. When we have an applicant that is unsure, I have a very unique ability of convincing them that enlisting in the Army is the correct decision. Though that is related to influence, it isn't the point that I am trying to make. The fact that I have the silver tongue and am an expert "salesman" puts me in a position where I can actually exercise expert power over my peers and my superiors. My managers know that I have the specialized ability so it helps me influence them. Often this results in my ability to adjust the duty schedule to fit my needs. My next source of power is also very closely related. I have the ability to exert information power. Though I don't directly control the actual information, I have the ability to communicate with others in my unit. One of my strong points is networking. I do not understand why people are hesitant or afraid to communicate but it often falls on me to control the flow of information. This gives me direct access to higher levels of management and leadership and the ability to develop personal relationships with those leaders. My final and most effective source of power is referent power. This is "derived from the desire of others to please an agent toward whom they have strong feelings of affection, admiration, and loyalty" (Yukl, 2013, p. 190). I personally feel that this is my strongest source of power in my work center. We take a lot of pride in our camaraderie. We respect one another. We are loyal to one another. We treat one another as family. Therefore, we all are able to influence one another simply from loyalty and respect.

Currently, due to the nature of my work, I realize that I do have very limited position power but I do understand and respect the position power of those over me. As I have already stated, we all do have referent power, though. But I know that this will not always be the case. Eventually, I will promote and I will have position power again. In the meantime, I want to respect the power of those over me. I want them to respect my sources of power as well, though. I already alluded to the fact that I can use the power that I do have to control things such as schedules and even, to a limited extent, assignments. I want to be very careful to never abuse my power, though. My opinion is that when power is abused, it is lost. We have a duty to be good stewards of the power that we do have.



Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.2.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Supportive Behavior

As we continue to progress through both the course and the degree program, we are learning more about how the role of a leader differs from the role of a manager. In his peer-reviewed article to the Research-Technology Management Journal, Maccoby (2000) goes to great lengths to highlight that managers serve an administrative function. Every business must have a manager. Leaders, however, are responsible for establishing relationships and energizing an organization from within. He proposes that people will either follow a leader within an organization out of fear or out of a mix of positive reasons such as success and trust. Personally, I want to be a leader that is followed for positive reasons.

This week, we were introduced to the concept of supportive leadership which will help us develop those positive traits that will empower us to become effective leaders. "Supportive leadership (or "supporting") includes a wide variety of of behaviors that show consideration, acceptance, and concern for the needs and feelings of other people. Supportive leadership helps to build and maintain effective interpersonal relationships" (Yukl, 2013, p. 63).  What that means to me is that supportive leadership means to apply the well-known Golden Rule. Treat others as you would expect to be treated. In supportive leadership, there is no focus on managing a team. There are no administrative functions. Supportive leadership simply builds personal relationships with each member of the team and inspiring loyalty through relationships. It is important to note, though, that supporting is simply a tool for building positive relationships. Just because there is no emphasis on management doesn't mean that a manager cannot use this approach. As discussed in my previous blog, a manager can be a leader and vise-versa.

Yukl (2013) notes that there are four main guidelines for supporting. First, show acceptance in a positive regard. This means to be polite and considerate. Get to know about the activities of your subordinates outside of work such as their family life. The key, though, is to remember that what you learn must be kept in confidence. Second, provide sympathy and support when subordinates are anxious or upset. This does not mean that a supportive leader has to agree with the subordinate but should at least give credence to the feelings of the subordinate. The third guideline is to bolster the person's self-esteem and confidence. You must make them feel that they are a valued member of the team. Remember that they will make mistakes and don't devalue them for that. The final guideline is to be willing to help with personal problems. Bearing in mind that supporting is about building interpersonal relationships, this will reinforce to your subordinates that they are, indeed, valued not just as members of the team but also simply as a human being.

Though I may not have always known that I was following the guidelines to supportive leadership, these are principles that I strive to meet in my professional environment. I don't necessarily do it because I wish to inspire others to follow me. I do it because these are the traits that my parents encouraged in my sister and me. I was raised with a servant-attitude. Since this is how I was raised, it is something that does come naturally to me now. Perhaps that is why I feel empowered to be a positive leader. Even though these traits were ingrained in us growing up, there is still much room for development, especially in the professional environment.

Yukl (2013) does go deeper into the ways to develop supporting. He outlines nine guidelines for developing as well. They are:

• Show concern for each person's development
• Help the person identify ways to improve performance
• Be patient and helpful when providing coaching
• Provide helpful career advice
• Help the personal prepare for a job change
• Encourage attendance at relevant training activities
• Provide opportunities to learn from experience
• Encourage coaching by peers when appropriate
• Promote the person's reputation

As a member of the military, some of these guidelines are easier to follow than others. Some happen naturally. Some can't happen at all. For example, I am not equipped to help someone prepare for a career change as I have never held a job outside of the military. However, it is a requirement that I prepare and schedule my subordinates for training. It is pretty obvious what we can and cannot control. But when it comes to supporting, the one guideline that really sticks out to me is promoting the person's reputation. I am so very proud of my entire team. That doesn't mean that I always agree with the actions just as I know that they don't agree with mine. We all make mistakes. Some are more obvious than others. What is important, however, is that we treat one another with dignity and respect as a family. As Soldiers, that is what I feel we are - a family. When I comes to the reputation of my subordinates, I will always strive to praise in public and criticize in private.

I will not say that it is more important to be a leader than a manager. I truly believe that both roles are critical. However, I do believe that I want to be a positive leader. I hope to continue to polish my skills and inspire others to follow me through supportive leadership. I want to treat people as valued members of a team because to me they are family.


References

Maccoby, M. (2000). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research-Technology Management, 43(1), 57-59.

Yukl, G. (2103). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.1.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Leadership vs. Management

The first week of this course (MSLD 511 - Organizational Leadership) went pretty much as expected. As most first weeks of a new course are, it really just gave us a brief overview of what we will be researching in the class. We discussed the actual definition of leadership and the roles that leaders and managers play in an organization. One of the key points of discussion were the roles of managers and leaders. Though managers often act as leaders, the roles are actually quite different.

There are actually a lot of experts that believe that managers should not be leaders. "The most extreme distinction assumes that management and leadershio cannot occur in the same person (Yukl, 2013, p. 6.). As a relatively new student in the Master of Leadership program, part of me wants to say that it is not my place to say if this is right or wrong. Clearly people that are much more qualified than I am have conducted extensive research to come to that conclusion. Another part of me, however, thinks that perhaps these experts are misguided. For the time being, I will choose to remain neutral and I will respect their point of view. Perhaps there is some truth to it. I am still entitled to my own opinion, though, and my belief is that leadership is not just a role but is a trait/skill that can be learned/sharpened. Regardless, there is no doubt that leadership and management are completely separate roles. I found a pretty great article that I encourage my blog followers to read. In it, three main differences between managers and leaders are highlighted. The first is that leaders innovate and managers administer. In other words, the leader is responsible for coming up with the ideas and the manager is responsible for implementing them. Second, leaders are able to inspire trust whereas a manager relies on control. This isn't to say that control is a bad thing. It is simply a tool. The third distinction is that leaders ask "what" and "why" whereas managers ask "how" and "when". The article closes with an excellent point. She says that "the best managers are leaders" but "you can do both, but you have to take time to cultivate it" (Giang, 2012). (The link to the article is listed in the references at the bottom of this blog. I actually believe that it is part of the American Express website so I did my best to reference it properly.) As I previously stated, my opinion is that leadership is a trait so it can be learned. I didn't simply seek out an article to backup my opinion but that last line is very powerful to me. "You have to take time to cultivate it." As a career military man, we don't have the option to have separate leaders and managers. Of course the top generals don't actually do much administration but I will never work at that level. I am talking about on a local level. We, as managers, are forced to all be leaders. I take a lot of comfort in knowing that I can learn to be more effective.

For this assignment, we were given a video to watch. It is a TED Talk that I have seen numerous times and actually love to share with my center when we need to refocus. In it, the orator, Simon Sinek (2009), discusses how it isn't about the product but rather about the attitude. The focus that great leaders and innovators ask is "why" first and foremost. As a leader, that is what I want to do. Right now, that is a pretty easy question for me to answer. Why am I am Army recruiter? I love my country and I believe that we need to recruit the cream of the crop to ensure that our home is safe. However, I will be retiring very soon. I am not sure what I will be doing in the future but the concept is still sound. I want to work for an organization where I don't have a problem answering this question. If I don't know why (and making money, the video points out, is just a byproduct and not an actual reason), I don't believe that I can lead others. That will be my litmus test.



References:

Giang, V. (2012). 3 things that separate leaders from managers. Open Forum. Retrieved       from https://goo.gl/uKV0ER

Sinek, S. (2009). How great leaders inspire action [video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations, 8th Edition. Prentice Hall.

A500.9.4.RB_LeeDarrell - Course Reflections

So this is it. I have now completed (well, almost completed) my first course in the MSLD program. Even though this wasn't my first grad school class, it was surely the most interesting. Having taken a few previous classes, I started this one expecting it to be something completely different than it was. First of all, the name of the course is "Leadership Foundations in Research". I honestly thought that it was going to be about how to do research. Though that was a major part of the class, it wasn't really the main focus. That surprised me. The main focus ended up being on critical thinking.

I will begin with the positives of the class. First, I am honestly a little upset with some of my past instructors. I didn't know it at the time but the Hunt Library is such an awesome tool. This class had an assignment devoted to learning how to properly utilize the Hunt Library. WHY is this not required in other classes? This would have made my undergraduate work a lot easier. But other than just learning how to use one tool to do research - again, that wasn't really the main focus of the class - I really learned a lot about how I think. I have always been a very logical person. I inherited that trait from my mother. But logical thinking is just a small part of critical thinking. I learned that it is okay and even required to embrace emotions a little with critical thinking. I learned that it is okay to have assumptions. And, most important, I learned how to be a more effective time manager/prioritizer (that's my own new word) through critical thought. (That was the main focus of my action research on my own work history.)

As far as the negatives of this class, it took a lot more time an effort than past classes. I am always willing to put forth the effort, of course, but this time consuming course just happened to coincide with the most hectic work schedule that I have seen since I was deployed. I had to take this class while working 60+ hours a week in the office and while dealing with a move to a new apartment. But I think all of that actually makes me appreciate it just a little bit more. I don't consider this wasted time. I consider it time invested.

A500.8.3RB_LeeDarrell - What makes a good presentation?

We are getting very close to the end of our class now. We have completed the majority of our assignments. In fact, other than a couple of discussions and blogs, all of the written assignments are now complete. I have to admit that it takes a little bit of pressure off when I look at my overall grades for the class and realize that I could technically not complete any other assignments and still pass the class. That isn't to say that I would accept that as a reality. I am not a quitter and I don't see how doing just the bare minimum academically will benefit anybody.

Though all of the written assignments are done, there is still one beast of an assignment - my presentation. I need to take my action research report -  my "research paper" for the class - and turn it into a presentation. This would not be a monumental event if I had the technical expertise to make a nice presentation to put online. As a certified teacher and former instructor, I am used to giving live presentations. I have no problem making my little PowerPoint slides and getting in front of a class and teaching but this will be different. I have to figure out how to convey my entire message without physically being present. I have a few ideas for a YouTube video but even that will be difficult as I don't think that I have the proper video equipment.

Regardless of how I do it, the purpose of this post is to ponder on what makes a good presentation and what makes a bad one. I am sure that we have all been there at some point in our professional lives where we had to endure the most brutal presentations and we feel like we got nothing from it. I experienced that just yesterday, actually. We had some battalion training that almost required toothpicks for me to put in my eyelids. I do not know why but people that give presentations in the military tend to hate to use microphones. I don't know if it is just a cockiness issue or pride or what. However, we have the technology. I wish that people would use it. Yesterday, we were in the drill hall. Our Commander and Command Sergeant Major both have very powerful voices. When they speak, they honestly don't need the microphone. However, the briefer that followed does not. He actually held the microphone at his side through the entire presentation. He thought that he was pretty awesome but nobody could hear him. So the first element of a good presentation is being able to actually hear it! It kind of makes you wonder how Jesus gave the sermon on the Mount of Olives or how Moses delivered the Ten Commandments. Maybe God just amplified them.

Keeping right in line with being able to clearly hear the presentation, the one giving the presentation must also know the material. I saw a few people say that on the discussion board this week. That isn't to say that they have to know every single detail of the subject at hand but they at least need a working knowledge of what is being presented. And if they don't, they need to be very convincing at making you believe that they do.

The next thing has to do with PowerPoint. There was a reading assignment dedicated to it this week. I think that we have forgotten what life is like without it. The best presentations that I have seen in my life didn't use it at all. It is meant to be a tool and not the whole. If you use it as a tool, that is great. But K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, silly). Too much writing is a complete killer. Too many animations or too much clutter is as well. That isn't to say that you shouldn't use any animations or any text. But less is more. But what really blows my mind about PowerPoint is that people often do not review their slides before presenting them. I have seen this happen where there was a ton of text - like paragraphs worth - of blue on black text or orange on red. You can't see that. Contrast is important in your text. People often think that the two most contrasting colors are black and white. This is actually not not. They are black and yellow. Think about a highway. They are painted with yellow stripes to divide directions.

Ultimately, there is no perfect way to give a presentation. The best presenters, though, are confident and use the tools at their disposal without relying on the tools to give the presentation for them. That really is the bottom line.

A500.7.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Quantitative Research

Last week, I discussed qualitative research. Though the actual concept wasn't foreign to me, the actual definition was. Imagine that you have been doing a certain exercise at the gym for years and finally someone says, "Oh, I see that you are doing squat-benders" and you just never know that is what your exercise was called.  That is what I mean by the concept not being foreign by the definition was. However, just like the person doing that exercise, they may be doing it with improper form. Even though I was familiar with the overall concept, I can tell you with confidence that I would have no idea how to actually conduct a qualitative study.

This week, we are shifting our focus a little from qualitative to quantitative research. It wasn't until my readings for the week that I realized that I actually missed some of the key points last week. We looked at a PowerPoint presentation this week and it had a comparison that I really loved between the two. It said, "Qualitative research aims at understanding. It answers primarily to as how? - questions." It then went on to say, "Quantitative research aims as (casual) explanation. It answers primarily to why? - questions." I was looking at qualitative research as being more a study of the change in the variables in a social experiment. I guess that really wasn't too far off. The variables in a given environment to affect the how but it is a little more in depth than that. Fortunately, the purpose of a class is to learn. It is okay if I get some concepts wrong. My understanding is still developing. In a case like this, it took studying quantitative research this week to understand what I was really supposed to be learning last week. These are actually fairly advanced concepts that may take some time to really understand.

So shifting my focus now to quantitative research - the why - I am left still scratching my head just a little trying to figure out how this really plays into the social sciences and, specifically, with my current and future leadership roles. Quantitative research does deal a lot with gathering numbers and statistics. However, the quantity is just the end result. Actual quantitative research is, like qualitative research, still adaptable. What I mean by that is that you still have to keep the desired goal of the research in mind and adjust your research methods to gather the correct data. It seems pretty straight-forward overall. Quantitative research aims to gather quantities and you adjust your methods to get the data that you need. It seems so simple so it may seem odd that I say that I am not quite sure how to apply that to leadership roles. The reason that I say that is because leadership and management are two completely different fields that people often confuse. I can see how managers can easily apply quantitative research in what they do because the role of a manager is to utilize available resources in the most efficient way. A leader, on the other hand, is there to provide vision, motivation and direction. To really understand how quantitative research fits with leadership, a leader would have to understand how changing variables change end results. For example, if I work for a company that makes widgets and we sell x number of widgets per week on average then, all of the sudden, we are selling y number of widgets instead as identified through quantitative research (remember, quantity = numbers), that would be a sign that we would need to investigate what variables changed to produce the new results. But again, doesn't that feel like more of a management function than a leadership function? Quantitative research tends to just take a snapshot of the environment and say, "this is what is going on and here is the data". (This is usually collected through a random sample of the population.)

Ultimately, qualitative and quantitative research should not be viewed as an "either this or that" choice. A leader needs to be able to know how to use the two together. Quantitative data will show you the snapshot. Qualitative research will show you what variables were at play to get there. And a leader must use the two to adjust the environment (NOT manipulate the environment but adjust through positive and meaningful change) to lead the organization to the next step.

A500.6.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Qualitative Research

We seem to be on the downward slope of our class now. A bulk of the concepts have been introduced. We are getting close to the point to where we will just be focusing on our projects but there is still room to grow. As we prepare to research our project topics, this week we were introduced to an entire new research method - qualitative research.

Qualitative research is, in a nutshell, a research method that emphasizes looking at variables in the natural setting in which the research is conducted. Honestly, it is still a little foreign to me so I had to look at a lot of several websites that described what it was to come up with that definition. Traditional research would be considered quantitative research. That is where you focus predominantly on the results vs. the qualitative research that looks at the interaction between the variables. (Qualitative research appears to be primarily in the field of social sciences.) For example, suppose I wanted to examine how a group of twenty people progressed over the course of a year when they exercised regularly for a year. Quantitative research may show you the physical and mental results. It would show that those that exercised had more energy, lower blood pressure, less depression, better performance at work, etc. Qualitative research, however, would look at the conditions in when the experiment was conducted. I don't mean that it would examine the weather or time of day or anything like that. It would be more like examining how the same conditions may have a different effect on different people even though they were in the same situation or how minor changes would influence their decisions. The thought that comes to mind to me is the scene in the original "Jurrasic Park" movie where Dr. Malcom is talking about his chaos theory. Even that is still not qualitative research but it is the closest comparison that I can really make.

Our reading assignment over qualitative research identified eight main characteristics of qualitative research. The following list can be retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html.

1. Qualitative research uses the natural setting as the source of data. 

2. The researcher acts as the "human instrument" of data collection.

3. Qualitative researchers predominantly use inductive data analysis.

4. Qualitative research reports are descriptive. 

5. Qualitative research has an interpretive character, aimed at discovering the meaning events have for the individuals who experience them, and the interpretations of those meanings by the researcher.

6. Qualitative researchers pay attention to the idiosyncratic as well as the pervasive, seeking the uniqueness of each case.

7. Qualitative research has an emergent (as opposed to predetermined) design, and researchers focus on this emerging process as well as the outcomes or product of the research.

8. Qualitative research is judged using special criteria for trustworthiness.

(Sanders, 1997) 

It is actually quite fortuitous that we are being introduced to this concept at this point in the class. As I previously mentioned, we are moving into the research project phase. The research project in this class is very different from what we are used to doing. We aren't just researching a theory or program or statistics. Instead, we are researching something that is relevant to us as it applies to developing our critical thinking and leadership skills. I think that my topic is really being boiled down to obstacles to critical thinking that I face. Just as those obstacles can mutate and shift, so, too, can qualitative research. It doesn't have a predetermined path. It focuses on the humanism and the spirit of the subject instead of just looking at the end result. That all matches the pattern of the development of the obstacles that we all face with critical thinking. 

One interesting story about qualitative research from my week - On Tuesday, I had printed out the article that we were to read on qualitative research to read on my commute to work. I had to go to our headquarters in Brooklyn for training so I had about an hour on the subway. I can only imagine how my face must have looked to my fellow commuters. Honestly, this is a very deep subject and the article read like a technical order complete with "big words". I read the article twice on my commute just to make sure that I understood. Well...I didn't. However, when I got to my company headquarters for the training, we were ushered into the conference room where we were introduced to the team that came in to give the class. It was all of that touchy-feely personality stuff. The main woman, Dr. Tobias, was a social scientist. After the class, I was chit-chatting with her a little and I wanted to sound smart so I said, "I bet that they get all of these results through qualitative research" and she said, "That is EXACTLY what this is". That is when I had to be honest with her that I didn't know what I was really talking about and she was kind enough to break it down for me. What we were doing was not just training but also qualitative research. We were being observed in our natural setting. What we were saying wasn't anywhere near as important as how we were reacting to one another based on our environment. When she explained it, I finally had my "ah-HA!" moment and I began to realize what qualitative research actually is. But truly, I am just beginning to realize it. This is still a foreign concept to me but I am very interested in exploring it more. 

A500.5.3RB_LeeDarrell "Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking"

I have now been enrolled in the MSLD 500 class for a little over a month now. When I first began the class, I had a completely different idea about what we would be studying. The class is "Leadership Foundations in Research". I thought that it was going to be similar to one of the undergraduate classes where you just are learning how to conduct research but on a higher level. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that it wasn't "check the block" type class and that there actually is some substance to it. The focus thus far has been primarily on critical thinking.

Going into this class, I suppose that I had my own ideas about what critical thinking actually was but it had never been fully defined. Obviously it is a pretty in-depth topic if an entire graduate level class can be devoted to it. That indicates to me that even those that have completed an undergraduate degree may have been introduced to critical thinking but have most likely not mastered it. That is where I found myself. It is a term that I had heard and had self-defined but I wasn't truly familiar with it. I just thought that it meant giving serious thought to something to find the proper course of action.

I think that we all inherit certain traits from our parents. Some of those traits are psychological. Some are social. Some are mental. My father is a very emotional based man. I think that my sister inherited that trait from him. My mother has always been very logical. That is something that I inherited from her. In a crisis situation, my mother and I have always been the ones that I can step back and evaluate the situation and take control. I think that is an indicator of someone that thinks critically - using logic. But something that I have learned from this class is that it is so much more than that. Critical thinking is about more than just using logic. It is about applying a system of thought that includes emotion and perspective.

So how has this class changed me? As with most things, I think we get out of it what we put into it. I am sure that there are people that have taken this class before me and those that will take it after me that don't really care what they learn here. I, however, and working on my masters degree because I do want to learn. I don't just want to be a leader. I want to be an effective leader. I want to make a difference. Over the last month, I have been actually trying to apply what I have learned about critical thinking to my life. The main thing that I have been doing is trying to think about the eight elements of critical thinking. (Point of view, purpose, question at issue, assumptions, implications/consequences, information, concepts, conclusions/interpretations.) I memorized what they are I slow down and think about each of them in my situations. One thing that I have noticed is that it is really slowing down my thought processes. I am trying to not get discouraged by that. Our textbook even mentioned that that very well may happen. It's a little like trying to drink from a fire hose. It is a lot to think about. But I think the more that I do it, the easier it is becoming. I am at least familiar enough with the process now that I can just remind myself to follow the steps. The problem is that everything has to work in unison. For example, I have remember my point of view while processing the information and I have to remember the assumptions all at the same time. Sometimes it is tempting to just go back to my old way of thinking but it is too late. I have learned the right way to do it now so I can't just stop. The more I do it, I think the easier it will become. It may take years to master critical thinking but it is a work in progress.

A500.4.3.RB_LeeDarrell

For this week's blog, we were asked to watch a video titled "The Art of Choosing" which is a speech given by Dr. Sheena Iyengar. (Click here to view the video.) This is a video on the website TED.com which has hundreds of "TED Talks". These videos all seem to be inspirational or motivating for teams and can be used in a workshop setting. I found this pretty ironic because I had never heard of the TED Talks before this week but this is actually my third time this week seeing one. We have a new battalion commander and he seems to love these videos so that that was my first introduction to them and then my pastor sent an e-mail with a link to one and now I viewed this one for class.

The video today was all about choices that we have to make. The orator, Dr. Iyengar, talks about her travels around the world and interactions with people from other cultures when dealing with choices. It is very interesting how different people view choices. For example, she is talking about a trip to Eastern Europe and offering a choice of sodas to interviewees. Though there are seven sodas from which to choose, they only view it as having one choice – soda or soda. She then was talking about some of the cultures that never had the option of choice (former Communist countries) and then choice was forced on them and they didn’t quite know how to adapt.

In the video, Dr. Iyengar points out three main assumptions.

1.       Everybody wants to make their own choices.

2.       Having more options leads to better choices.

3.       You should never say no to having a choice.

For the most part, I think that I agree with these assumptions but a lot of that is, as I previously pointed out, cultural. The world is a “shrinking” place and cultures are growing closer and closer together. However, one assumption that I will make is that we will continue to operate in a primarily capitalist society where we do have choices. It is in this society where we, the students of this class, will continue to strive to be leaders. But sometimes as leaders, we are the ones that are equipped to make the wise choices for those in our organizations. This is something that was really sticking out to me as I watched this video. I am an Army recruiter. I know that enlisting in the Army is the best choice for a lot of the young men and women that interact with me daily. When I walk into the bodega around my corner or ride the subway, I see these young adults that want to make their own choices to feel validated so talking to me can’t be forced on them. I view interacting with them as a leadership role so how can I convince them to come talk to me? The key to that is to make it feel like it is their idea. Now I am not saying that I know what is best for them to do with their lives but I know that they need something that they lose nothing by coming to talk to me. If they feel like it was their idea to come and see me, I can get them in the office every time. But that is the key. It has to be their choice. I think that may be something for leaders at all levels in any organization to bear in mind. Even if we, as the leaders, have the vision and know the right steps, we have to let those that we are leading decide for themselves to take those steps. Our role is to guide them to make that decision on their own.

The assumption that having more options leads to better choices is true to an extent I believe. However, there is a point where too many choices can become overwhelming and counterproductive. A perfect example of that is right here at home for me. I live in Manhattan. A decision as simple as what to have for dinner can become overwhelming. There are literally hundreds are food choices within walking distance of my apartment. So why are there times when I can’t figure out what I want? Because it is overwhelming. From a leadership standpoint, this is something else that we have to keep in mind. Having options is good. Having too many options overwhelms the organization. It ties up resources. Sometimes less is better. 

A500.3.4.RB_LeeDarrell

I have been a student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) since
2004, I think. When I was studying for my undergraduate degree, I took a
pretty even mix of on-campus and online classes. My graduate work has been
completed primarily online or through Eagle Vision (which is like a video
teleconference class).  One thing that every class that I have taken through
ERAU is that the syllabus always recommends using the Jack Hunt Library
which is located at the main school campus in Daytona, FL. In fact, I have
even taken classes that mandate the use of the library in completing
research papers for the class. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately,
depending on your point of view), most of my instructors in the past have
been very lenient with that requirement because I honestly had no idea how
to actually use that particular library. I would always just do my research
in traditional ways - looking up articles online and finding books at the
local library - and claiming that the book was contained at the Hunt
Library. I was still pretty clever with it and would verify via the online
catalog that the library did indeed contain that book in case my instructor
checked. 

Today, I finally completed the online training for the Hunt Library. You
know how us men can be. We often refuse to ask for directions or read the
instructions. (I know that I am not speaking for all men when I say that but
I do fit the humorous stereotype of being stubborn.)  Just as when I finally
read the directions on how to use Windows 8, my mind was blown at how easy
it is to actually use our library. I remember reading/hearing in the past
that it was possible to have the library send you books via mail and I knew
that they published a few magazines and articles online but I thought that
was the extent of what could be done. After completing the online training,
I started to explore the resources available. I did a little test and
researched the topic of my last research paper on the topic of EMAS
(Enhanced Materials Arresting Systems - a form of soft collapsible concrete
places at the end of runways that will stop an aircraft from running off a
runway). I wish that I would have known how to use the Hunt Library before
because it returned 72 results. I really only looked at the first four of
them but two of those were excellent .PDF documents that were already in the
system. The databases also contained the statistics that I would have needed
to write my last research paper. 

One area where I am still just a little unclear is with scholarly articles.
When I say that I am unclear, I don't mean that I don't understand what they
are. A "scholarly article" is one that has been written by vetted experts in
a field and study and usually has been peer reviewed. These can be articles
that appear in periodical journals or technical reports. The lack of clarity
that I have really is just more of an unfamiliarity. However, now that I
have finally selected the degree plan for me (Leadership), I am anxious to
incorporate scholarly articles into my research. I have tried to use search
engines such as Google and Yahoo in the past to find scholarly articles but
have often found myself linked to a website that requires that I give my
credit card information to download the article. I was able to open a few of
them through the Hunt Library without having to pay. This actually excites
me a little. Focusing on a discipline in graduate school is not the same as
undergraduate studies. Earning a masters degree means that one has actually
mastered a field of study. Within each field, new ideas are always being
introduced. The discipline of leadership is ever evolving. Books can take
months or even years to have published resulting in "fresh" ideas being
outdated. Having access to these articles means that I can see them as soon
as they are presented. Scholarly articles that are available through the
Hunt Library have all been filtered in some way. When I think about the
difference between using the library to search for them vs. a search engine,
I think of what my mother used to ask when I would pick up something off the
ground and put it in my mouth. "Spit that out! You don't know where it's
been!" Using a search engine kind of feels the same way. How do we truly
know the source? How do we know that it can be trusted? 
Ultimately, I am a little upset with myself that it took me this long to

learn how to use the Jack Hunt Library. What an amazing resource that has
been right at my fingertips through my college education!